Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

HoL and money bills

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:59 pm

Well, yes, indeed it is. But much of our constitution is made up of these conventions, like the ones I have listed above which are absolutely fundamental to our constitutional settlement. They may not have the force of law, but in many cases breach of them is unthinkable.

I have tried to set out the constitutional position without coming down on one side or other of the argument. The situation is more complex than either side wishes to admit. As I said in my post above, this is both the strength and the weakness of the British constitution.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby theycantdothat » Sun Nov 01, 2015 6:15 pm

What ought to be a convention is that if a party says in an election campaign that it will not do something that the HoL can interfere with any legislation which does that thing. Is it not the other side of the coin which says that the HoL does not impede legislation promised in a manifesto?
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1166
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:13 pm

atticus wrote:What constitutes "often" for this purpose?

Hey, I don't write these unwritten rules. Don't blame me if they are not as clear as they might be.
I imagine we'd all agree that they're clearer than they would be if I had written them...
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10089
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:17 pm

theycantdothat wrote:What ought to be a convention is that if a party says in an election campaign that it will not do something that the HoL can interfere with any legislation which does that thing. Is it not the other side of the coin which says that the HoL does not impede legislation promised in a manifesto?

I had to read that twice, but I think I agree absolutely.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10089
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:18 pm

theycantdothat wrote:What ought to be a convention is that if a party says in an election campaign that it will not do something that the HoL can interfere with any legislation which does that thing. Is it not the other side of the coin which says that the HoL does not impede legislation promised in a manifesto?


Yes, the Salisbury Convention does not apply unless the Government has a democratic mandate for whatever it is trying to do, generally interpreted as being a manifesto commitment (though now manifestos are less important than they once were, I wonder whether that is quite accurate).

However the convention that the Lords do not interfere in secondary legislation applies even where the Salisbury Convention does not.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:22 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:However the convention that the Lords do not normally interfere in secondary legislation applies even where the Salisbury Convention does not.


I've corrected that for you.
You do persist in clinging to that misinterpretation of the convention. It is not a difficult concept: why do you struggle so?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10089
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:47 pm

FFS.

I think I have made my position clear. Grow up, Hairy.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:50 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:FFS.

I think I have made my position clear.

Indeed you have: clearly in the wrong.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10089
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:54 pm

I have tried to discuss the issues without taking a particular side, but I think that comment brings my contribution to this thread and indeed to the Board to a convenient close. Farewell.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:05 pm

That is a bit of an extreme reaction: I am sorry if I caused offence, but there is no shame in being wrong, and you are not far wrong at that.

The convention is that the Lords do not interfere in these things unless the decide they have a bloody good reason to do so.
The only relevant question is: did the Lords give due consideration to that convention and therefore decide that the reason to intervene met the requirements?

If they did not, then it would be unconstitutional, but I have seen enough that I am entirely happy that they have done so
I am sure that the full debate is freely available in the public domain in a selection of formats, so if you want to make the case that they did not, then do feel free to do so, but please stop coming back with the same old tripe.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10089
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest